If someone with Adversary is piloting a ship, does the attacks against the ship also get upgraded? What if he isn't piloting, but being another crew member, such as co-pilot or engineer?

Rules As Written, nope. There's a significant number of GMs who agree that it should come into play when the Adversary is piloting a single-person fighter though (and I agree - if only because fighters need some love).

Player: I attack Vader!

GM: What? Ok sure! he ignites his lightsaber and closes in on you!

Player: What?! No. I mean, I make a break for my X-Wing and dare him to engage me ship-to-ship, where he's most vulnerable.

The way I see it, if the NPC with Adversary is piloting a ship, the talent comes into play when someone attacks it. If he's a passenger or other crewmember it doesn't.

I'd say it applies if the Adversary is piloting (for smaller ships) or commanding (for capital ships). If he's just the super-engineer or whatever, then it wouldn't apply.

However I could also see if, say, slice weapon system is used on a quad-turret operated by an Adversary, then the Talent should apply.

If you've gone to the trouble of putting an opponent with the Adversary talent on an opposing ship, why wouldn't you put them in a position to allow their Adversary talent to be used? Another way of looking at it, their Adversary talents apply if the combat check involves them imo.

I'd say it applies in any vessel piloted by the adversary with a speed of at least 4, provided the adversary is in some way defined as a pilot/driver type.

I mean Jabba probably has Adversary, but if he jumps in a Tie Fighter he's just a moron.

I'd say it applies in any vessel piloted by the adversary with a speed of at least 4, provided the adversary is in some way defined as a pilot/driver type.

I mean Jabba probably has Adversary, but if he jumps in a Tie Fighter he's just a moron.

I disagree. The Adversary Talent is solely a form of metagame plot armor for an NPC based on the NPC's importance to the story and, for lack of a better word, the strength of his Name (or Legend) in the universe (even if you've never heard of him). That applies regardless of the NPC making good or bad tactical choices, being in a crappy or slow vehicle or being particularly skilled or suitable to work in a particular area.

I'd say it'd apply to any starship that the Adversary is directly piloting, mostly as NPCs aren't meant to have the various defensive options that PCs get to enjoy, but that's simply my take as a GM.

I disagree. The Adversary Talent is solely a form of metagame plot armor for an NPC based on the NPC's importance to the story and, for lack of a better word, the strength of his Name (or Legend) in the universe (even if you've never heard of him). That applies regardless of the NPC making good or bad tactical choices, being in a crappy or slow vehicle or being particularly skilled or suitable to work in a particular area.

It is a form of meta-game plot armor, but as a GM/Writer/Storyteller you do not want to show the bones of the story. Nothing breaks immersion like a because-I-said-so excuse. I don't think of No-Jabba-pilots so much as a rule and more a guideline for not shooting your game in the foot.

If the GM can say to a player who wants his human character to sleep hanging upside down from a tree that it's stupid, then the players should get the same curtesy. A lightsaber cuts both ways.

I've been threatening my GM, since EotE came out, that I would at some point play a Hutt A-Wing pilot!!!

It is a form of meta-game plot armor, but as a GM/Writer/Storyteller you do not want to show the bones of the story. Nothing breaks immersion like a because-I-said-so excuse. I don't think of No-Jabba-pilots so much as a rule and more a guideline for not shooting your game in the foot.

Surely it depends on how you narrate it? With Darth Vader the Adversary talent would be him using the Force to know what you're about to do and jinking at the last second. With someone not known for their piloting skills it'd be their cunning ("you never get a clean shot, he keeps piloting so that his own men get in the way of your shot") or wealth ("his ship has experimental ablative armour") or just dumb luck ("the systems on your gunnery station are acting up, they keep rebooting your targeting computer just as you think you've lined up the perfect shot").

Yes, it absolutely depends on how you narrate it.

Even the best GMs in my experience panic, or have failures of creativity. Setting yourself some guidelines, so that you don't get into situations where your players sit back and glare at you for being D-bag is a good idea. The whole, "Oh noes, you killed all my Gary Stu NPC's minions and now he might die. I'll make him run away in the most improbable way possible," is GM fail on a whole host of levels.

The most elegant thing you can do there is let the PCs kill the Hutt (or whatever) and "reveal" that he was not the crime boss they were looking for. The PCs don't get punished for winning and the story doesn't go down the crapper. Everybody wins.

Compelling antagonists depend on limits even more then protagonists do. It's too temping as the God of the Game to give your NPC whatever he needs whenever he needs it. That ruins games. Power corrupts and all that. Figure out at least a semi-plausible reason for why and your game will be better for it.

How many TV shows, movies or books have you asked yourself, "How did the bad guys even know where to attack? That's so stupid." You don't want the players to realize the game is rigged.

Is the player trying to inflict any form of harm to the NPC? If yes, you would upgrade the attack, regardless of the skill being used.

My two credits on the issue..

I've been threatening my GM, since EotE came out, that I would at some point play a Hutt A-Wing pilot!!!

You know you're doing it right when the pilot is the same silhouette as the vehicle he's flying.

The way I see it, if Jabba can afford a custom TIE fighter that can handle a slug of his 'stature', he can benefit from adversary ranks.